The Upanishads

The words 'Upanishat' occurs in apposition to the word 'Nishat' as early as in Rigveda Khila.
According to Max Mueller, Upanishad literally means "sit down near" (Upa - near, ni - down,
shad - sit) which meant that the spiritual aspirant had to sit devotedly near the teacher to
learn the doctrine. This suggestion has caught on rapidly, and is accepted by many modern
scholars like Dr. Sarvapalli Radakrishnan. However, many traditional scholars frown upon this
etymology and point out that it is ungrammatical. The earliest definitions of the word 'Upanishad'
are available in the extant fragments of Vakyakara, Brahmandin and Bhashyakara Dramidacharya -
two pre Shankaracharya commentators on Vedaanta who are quoted profusely by later Vedaantins like
Sudarshana Suri. Following are these fragments:

Vakyakara: "Upanisannatvad upanisat"- "The term Upanishad derives from the fact that it is
put down."

Dramidabhasyakara: Gahane hiyam vidya samnivista"- "For this meditation is contained in the
Mysterious One (that it is called Upanishad)"

These definitions are not very far from what Max Mueller has proposed, but certainly highlight
the 'mysterious' or the 'esoteric' nature of their doctrine. In other words, the doctrine was
secret (rahasyam) and was taught only to a chosen few. In fact, the word 'Upanishad' has been
used in the sense of 'secret' by Panini in his Ashtadhyaayi.

ENUMERATION OF THE UPANISHADS

The total number of extant Upanishads exceeds 200. Most of these texts are clearly late, and are
not considered authoritative by all Hindus. The Muktika Upanishad, a text dating to around
1000 C.E., lists 108 Upanishads.

By tradition, fourteen are considered as the principal Upanishads. They are Isha, Kena, Katha,
Prashna, Mundaaka, Maandukya, Taiitriya, Aitreya, Chaandogya, Brhadaaranyaka, Shvetaashvatara,
Kaushitaki, Mahaanaaraayana and Maitri. Recently, the following ancient Upanishads have been
discovered in manuscript and have been published: Arsheya, Chhagaleya, Shaunaka, Pranava, Katha
Shiksha and Baskhalamantra. The last even has a commentary attached to it, which closely
resembles the other commentaries of Shri Shankaracharya.

It is noteworthy that there are several other texts embedded in the Vedas and elsewhere that
resemble the Upanishads very closely in their thought. Examples are: The Brahmasukta of the
Atharvaveda, the Adhyatma Patala of the Apastamba Dharmasutra and so on.

While many of these Upanishads present Vedaantic thought, some late ones are sectarian, or are
inclined towards Yoga and Sannyasa. Apparently, these texts were named as Upanishads because the
word had acquired an aura or simply because these texts represent the esoteric, secret spiritual
doctrines of their respective sects.

RELATIONSHIP OF UPANISHADS WITH VEDIC LITERATURE

It is generally believed that the mantras, the Braahmanas and parts of the Aranyakas constitute
the karma kaanda or the works section of the Vedas, the Upanishads are the jnaana kaanda or the
knowledge section. In reality however, the mantras are ancient collections covering a wide range
of topics including rituals, ethics, spirituality, cosmology and so on. The Braahmanas are
theological treatises, largely dealing with Vedic ritual, and rubricating these mantras in the
rituals expounded. Often appended to these Braahmanas are esoteric texts called the Aranyakas.
And in these Aranyakas, are embedded the Upanishads. However, many Upanishads are stand alone
texts which might not have been integral with the Aranyakas. While the subject of the karma
kaanda is dharma, the subject of the jnaana kaanda is Brahman or reality. The Upanishads are
also called the Vedaanta (Veda - scripture, anta - end of) or the end of the Veda i.e., the final
purport of the Vedas. This is because of two reasons: They generally occur at the end of the
Samhita-Braahmana-Aranyaka literature; and because they represent a culmination or the 'final
view, or essence' (siddhanta) of the Vedic philosophy.

All extant Upanishads are traditional classified under one of the 4 Vedas. Sometimes, this
classification is opposed to the correct ancient placement of the Upanishads in the Vedic cannon,
and in the case of late Upanishads, such a classification often appears artificial. Appendix 1
groups the various ancient Upanishads under different Shakhas of the Vedas.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE UPANISHADIC DOCTRINE

The modern theory voiced in some quarters that the Upanishads represent the revolt of the
critical minded kshatriya against the ritualistic brahmin, finds little support in the texts
themselves. For not only do brahmin teachers outnumber kshatriya teachers in the Upanishads, it
was only the brahmins who fully developed the teachings of the Upanishads as presented in the
various schools of Vedaanta. A kshatriya teaching brahma vidhya or knowledge of reality to a
brahmin, is no argument, since tradition allowed all the three top castes to learn Vedaanta and
it is not unusual for a spiritually inclined kshatriya to possess higher knowledge of Brahman
than the average brahmin. And again such cases are exceptions and not the norm.

Another modern assertion that the Upanishads are against the sacrificial religion of the
Braahmanas is not wholly true. As noted before the Vedas are a whole spiritual package and each
section - the hymns, the sacrifices, the philosophical discussions - have their validity and
usefulness at a certain stage. The sacrificial religion served the religious needs of the masses
and also helped in the purification of oneself. At the householder stage they're the main source
of revenue for the brahmin. No orthodox thinker would object to that, which has so much social,
spiritual and religious utility. So the Upanishads are not against the sacrifices per se, but
only against their ultimate validity i.e., their ability or rather the lack of it, to effect
liberation. While the sacrificial religion is to be practiced in the householder stage, when one
moves to the forest dweller stage one is supposed to meditate on the symbolism and spiritual
value of the sacrifices. During the samnyaasin stage one's life (worldly life with all its
attachments) itself is said to be the sacrifice.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE UPANISHADS

The Upanishads are truly the fount of all Indian philosophy. All the BrAhmanical schools derive
their philosophies from the Upanishads and show an almost pathetic eagerness to find common
ground between their doctrines and the Upanishads. Not only is Jainism with its duality of matter
and Selves influenced by the Upanishads, even the Buddhist doctrines of annata, kshanikavaada,
shunyavaada, vijnaanavaada and the two levels of reality are all derived from the Upanishads.

Numerous scholars have felt compelled down the ages to compose their own commentaries or
sub-commentaries on the Upanishads. The commentaries of Shankaracharya are the most ancient
available ones, and also the most popular. These are written from an Advaita Vedaanta perspective.
The commentaries of Purnapraajna Anandatirtha (also called Madhvacharya) are written from a
Dvaita Vedaanta perspective, whereas Rangaramanuja has written his commentaries from a
Vishishtadvaita Vedaanta perspective. A partial list of these commentaries in Appendix B will
give an idea of how prolific their commentarial tradition has been.

PHILOSOPHY OF THE UPANISHADS

The Upanishads do not represent systematic philosophy. They represent teachings of the sages who
experienced or rather became reality (brahma vid brahmaiva bhavati - the knower of Brahman
becomes Brahman). The purpose of the Upanishads is not mere intellectual satisfaction, but a
practical solution to the ultimate problems of life. It is best expressed in the dialogue between
Yama and Nachiketas in the Katha Upanishad. Nachiketas, a braahmana boy questions Yama (the God
of Death) as to what happens to one's self after death. Does one exist or does he not, then? Yama
tries to dissuade the boy from seeking an answer to a question, which even Gods find difficult to
understand. Instead he offers a wide array of earthly comforts : long life, wealth, gold,
elephants, horses, land, beautiful women etc. Nachiketas turns them down saying that all these
are transient and only serve to wear out the senses of men. And when one has seen him i.e., Yama
or death, how could anybody enjoy these things of sense? And having understood the transience of
objects of sense and the implicit suffering contained in them, who would wish for a longer life?

As all phenomena are transient in nature worldly life ultimately leads to disappointment and
suffering. Death puts an end to all our hopes and ridicules our achievements in life. To be born
again is only to go through the same grind. So the end of suffering is not to be born at all and
to become immortal. This according to the Upanishads can be achieved when we know the true nature
of our Self (Atman).

The teaching of the Upanishads can be best understood under the following three categories :

the Self or essence of man - Atman

the Self or essence of the world - Brahman

the relation between Atman and Brahman

According to the Upanishads when knowledge of one's Self (Atman) is acquired, knowledge of the
essence (Self) of the world (Brahman) as well as the relationship between Atman and Brahman is known.

ATMAN

We find a clear exposition of the doctrine of the Atman and the practical path leading to it in
the dialogue between the sage Prajaapathi and Indra in the Chaandogya Upanishad. Indra, the king
of Gods and Virochana, the king of demons both approached Prajaapathi to learn the doctrine of
the Self. Prajaapathi first teaches them that the Self is unborn, uncreated, eternal, cannot be
destroyed and beyond suffering. Then he identifies the Self with the body. While Virochana
returns home satisfied, Indra is not convinced. How can the immortal Self be the body, which is
prone to change, decay and destruction? So he approaches Prajaapathi again and tells him of his
confusion. Prajaapathi next identifies the Self with the subject of the dream state. Indra is
again not convinced. How could the subject of the dream state be the eternal Self? Though devoid
of defects of the body, it still experiences emotions in dreams - it is happy, sad, terrified,
conscious of pain etc The Self being eternal cannot be subject to such limitations. So again he
goes back to Prajaapathi and tells him his doubts. Prajaapathi now tells him that the enjoyer of
the deep sleep state is the Self. But Indra is unconvinced by this too, for in deep sleep,
there's no conscious or awareness. We neither feel anything, nor know anything, nor will anything.
So what good is there in such a state?

When he approaches Prajaapathi again, the sage well pleased with his discriminatory powers
says : Dear Indra! The body and the subject of the dream state are not the Self though they exist
for the Self. The Self is not an abstract principle of the deep sleep state too. Yet it is
something, which persists through these three states or else we would not have the unity of
experience through the three states. The body, the senses, the mind, the presentation continuum,
the consciousness - are all mere instruments and objects of the Self. Though the Self is the
ground for the waking, dream and deep sleep states, it transcends them all. The Self is immortal,
self-luminous and self-proved. It is the ultimate subject, which can never become an object and
is necessarily presupposed by all knowledge. It is satchitAnanda (sat - existence, chit -
knowledge, Ananda - bliss).

But if we are in truth the eternal Atman, why do we not know it?

The Upanishads say that it is due to our ignorance (avidya) that we're not aware of the true
nature of ourselves. When ignorance is removed with right knowledge, the Self shines forth in
its true nature. In fact, acquisition of spiritual knowledge is the supreme purpose of human
existence. Human beings are superior to other forms of life only because they can sufficiently
discriminate between the real and the unreal, between the ephemeral and the eternal, between
darkness and light. A man who does not strive to make good of this opportunity and remains lost
in materialism has, as if, committed suicide. The 3rd verse of Ishavasya Upanishad therefore
declares:

"The immutable soul is the real nature of man, and not his mortal frame.
Because the soul endures from one life to the next,
whereas the body changes every moment and perishes with death.
But the materialistic people, enveloped with ignorance, vanity or pride,
deny the very existence of the soul.
They say- 'Only that exists which can be perceived with the senses.
There is nothing beyond, there is no yonder world after death.
Verily, man is but an agglomeration of the elements,
born of the lust of his parents.
We are born with our physical birth, and cease to exist after our death.
Indeed, there is no connection between actions and their fruits.
There no vice or virtue. So eat, drink and be merry.'
Denying their own true essence,
these deluded men have killed their own souls in this very life."

Right knowledge is not mere bookish knowledge. In fact the Upanishads equate even the sacred
Veda with lower knowledge, while knowledge of the Self (Atmajnaanam) is the highest knowledge.
This knowledge sought is more intuitive than intellectual. It is the knowledge of the subject,
which can never be known like an object. Right knowledge is obtained with the practice of faith,
purity, introversion and meditation. Two ways of meditation are suggested - meditation on the
mystic syllable "OM" and meditation on the heart center.

Recourse to Spirituality does not mean that one can forget his worldly duties. The Upanishads
stress again and again that 'faith without works is dead." As an example, quote the 2nd verse of
the Ishavasya Upanishad:

"Seek not the Truth by abandoning this world
Or by renouncing all your bounden duties.
This is indeed not the path of salvation.
Rather, desire ye to live a full life of a hundred years,
Actively engaged in the selfless perfromance
of your duties and enjoined actions at all times.
Verily, this is the only way enjoined for man's salvation,
And not the opposite.
All actions bear fruit- good or bad.
And these fruits taint his soul, causing him to be reborn!
But the fruits of actions- good or otherwise, don't taint that wise man,
who performs his duties selflessly, as an offering to God,
Just as a lotus leaf is not tainted by water, even though touching it.
But he, who through ignorance, shirks away from his duties,
Merely deludes himself by thinking- 'I am performing any action!'
Aye! no man can desist from action for even a single moment."

BRAHMAN

If the true Self of man is the Atman or reality, what about matter and the psychological mechanism?

The Upanishads are very clear that Brahman is the origin and the end of the world. It is the
material cause of the world and the world is a manifestation of Brahman. Brahman made the world
out of itself. The Brahmasukta of Atharveda (Paippalada Shakha) states

"(It is) The Supreme Being (Who) first spread out the mighty powers collected in Him
(It is) The Supreme Being (Who) first spread out the heavenly lights everywhere
Verily, The Supreme Being was born as first Lord of all that exists
Who, then is fit to be this Supreme Being's rival" VIII.9.1

"These Heaven and Earth are Supreme Being,
The seven currents are The Supreme Being
All the Adityas are Supreme Being
(Verily) All the divine beings contemplate upon the Supreme Being." VIII.9.2

In the Chaandogya Upanishad it is said :

In the beginning the world was just Being, one only, without a second.
Then it thought to itself : "Would that I were many. Let me procreate myself".

Again :

All this is verily Brahman. Brahman is that from which everything proceeds, that in which
everything breathes and that in which everything is finally dissolved.

A theory of evolution is presented in the doctrine of the pancha kosha or the five sheaths in
the Taiitriya Upanishad. The lowest level is the annamaya kosha or the plane of matter. Matter
is jada or devoid of consciousness and must evolve to life. So the second stage is praanamaya
kosha or the plane of life. Vegetables are an example of this kosha. From life evolves perceptual
consciousness and thus we have the manomaya kosha or the mental plane. But this is still
instinctive consciousness and can be related to that of animals. From instinctive consciousness
evolves consciousness, which is self conscious or rational. This is vijnaanamaya koshas or the
plane of self-conscious reason. This is the base for moral life and that, which distinguishes
man from animal. This is also the plane where the empirical trinity of knower, known and
knowledge exist. When the trinity of the knower, known and knowledge become fused in a
transcendental unity we have the highest state of evolution - the Anandamaya kosha or non-dual
bliss.

So does this evolution mean that the original Brahman is lost?

No. The Upanishads are firm that all such evolution is only in the level of name and form and
the original nature of reality is never lost. Analogies equating Brahman to clay in a clay pot or
gold in an ornament are used to bring home the point. Though name and form might vary, the
essence remains the same. All the stages of evolution are but manifestations of Brahman, which
is the soul of all matter and life (sarvabhutaantaraatmaa). It pervades all phenomena and is the
inner controller (antaryaamin) of all. "For fear of him fire burns, for fear of him the sun
shines and for fear of him the winds, the clouds and death perform their office".

In its very opening verse, the Ishavasya Upanishad reminds us that Brahman is the essence of
existence:

"All sentinent and insentinent objects in this ever changing Universe
are ephermal and pass away with time.
But the Lord Who is immanent in everything, and controls it in multifarious ways,
is Eternal and Imperishable.
Seek to realize this Eternal Truth and do not get entangled in this world.
Enjoy the bounties of Nature, but with a sense of reunuciation.
Do not hanker too much after riches and do not get obsessed with them.
To whom does all this belong? Certainly not to any man,
for we do not bring anything with us, nor do we take anything along.
But He, the Underlying Reality, owns all this, and we are mere guardians of His Divine riches."

ATMAN AND BRAHMAN

When the whole world is the manifestation of Brahman, even the Atman must be Brahman too. The
Mahaavaakyas or the great statements of the Upanishads proclaim : "Tat tvam asi - you are that"
and "Aham Brahmaasmi - I'm Brahman". Both identify Brahman to one's own self (Atman). But what's
the exact nature of their relationship? (This is the focal point of difference between the
various schools of Vedaanta).

Are they one and the same? The Advaita school of Vedaanta takes this stand and gives forth a
full fledged non-dualistic Absolutism. But if the Atman is eternal and unchanging, what about
the changes experienced in the world? According to Advaita Vedaanta, the changes in the world
are unreal (mithya) and an illusion (maaya).

Is Brahman and Atman related in the way of part to whole or quality to object? This is the
theory of the VisishtAdvaita school of Vedaanta which teaches qualified non-dualism ie the world
and the Selves are qualities of Brahman.

Are Brahman and Atman totally different? This cannot be, for it is explicitly taught in the
Upanishads that Brahman is the material cause of the world and the world is the manifestation of
Brahman. But still the Dvaita school of Vedaanta argues from this angle and presents a scheme
where God, Selves and matter are totally distinct and independent realities.

Actually the dualistic interpretation of the Upanishads as presented by the Dvaita school of
Vedaanta is not a new phenomenon. The other five Braahmanical schools - Saamkhya, Yoga, Nyaaya,
Vaishesika and Purva Mimaamsaa - all claiming to be the correct interpreters of the Upanishads
too propound a dualistic view of the universe.

Excerpts from two remarkable passages from the Upanishads are presented below - one from the
Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad and the other from the Chaandogya Upanishad. The first is the famous
dialogue between the greatest of Indian sages, Yaagnavalkya and his wife Maitreyi regarding the
nature of the Atman. The second is the equally famous dialogue between the sage Uddhaalaka Aruni
and his son Shvetaketu, where the relationship between Brahman and Atman is taught. The
translation is free and not exact.

Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad

Yaagnavalkya had two wives - Maitreyi and Katyaayani. While Maitreyi was a discourser of Brahma
Vidhya, Katyaayani possesed only such knowledge as women have. When Yaagnavalkya wished to move
on to the forest dweller (vaanaprastha) stage,

"Maitreyi", said Yaagnavalkya, "I'm getting away from this state of householder. So let me make
a settlement for you and that Kaatyaayani".

"My Lord", said Maitreyi, "even if the riches of the world were mine, would it make me immortal?

"No", said Yaagnavalkya, "your life will only be like the life of people with plenty of wealth.
But there's no hope of immortality through wealth".

Then Maitreyi said, "What shall I do with that by which I do not become immortal? Please,
venerable sir, explain to me whatever you know of immortality".

Then Yaagnavalkya said, "You were always dear to me Maitreyi, but now you've become dearer. So
as you wish I shall explain it to you. But as I expound, seek to meditate on it".

Then he said, "Verily, not for the sake of the husband is the husband dear, but for the sake of
the self is the husband dear. Verily not for the sake of the wife is the wife dear, but for the
sake of the self is the wife dear. Verily not for the sake of the sons … wealth … cattle …
braahmana … kshatriya … worlds … Gods … Veda … beings … all … is each dear, but for the sake of
the self is each dear. Verily Maitreyi, the self is to be seen, to be heard, to be reflected on,
to be meditated upon; when verily the self is seen, heard, reflected on and known, then all else
is known".

"Braahmanahood deserts him who knows Braahmanahood in anything else than the self. Kshatriyahood
deserts him who knows Kshatriyahood in anything else than the self. The worlds desert him … the
Gods desert him … the Vedas desert him … the beings desert him … all deserts him who knows all in
anything else than the self. This Braahmanahood, this Kshatriyahood, these worlds, these Gods,
these Vedas, all these beings, this all are the Self".

"As from a fire kindled with damp fuel different kinds of smoke issues forth, so verily from this
great being has been breathed forth the Rg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama Veda, the hymns of the
Atharvan and Angirasas, legend, ancient lore, sciences, sacred teachings, verses, aphorisms,
explanations, commentaries, sacrifices, oblation, food, drink, this world and the other and all
beings".

"As a mass of salt is altogether a mass of taste, without inside or outside, so is the self
altogether a mass of intelligence, without inside or outside. Having arisen out of these elements,
it vanishes again in them. When it has departed there's no more separate or particular
consciousness".

Then Maitreyi said, "Here indeed, venerable sir, you've caused me to reach utter bewilderment.
I do not at all understand this Self".

Yaagnavalkya replied, "I do not say anything bewildering. The Self verily is imperishable and of
indestructible nature".

"For where there's duality, there one sees another, one smells another, one tastes another, one
speaks to another, one hears another, one thinks of another, one touches and knows another. But
when everything has become one's own Self, by what and whom should one see, by what and whom
should one smell, taste, speak, hear, think, touch and know? By what should we know him by whom
all this is known? Indeed by what would one know the knower? The Self is to be described as not
this, not this (neti, neti). He is incomprehensible, indestructible, unattached, unfettered. He
does not suffer. Thus you have the instruction expounded to you, O Maitreyi. Such verily is life
eternal".

Having said this Yaagnavalkya went away into the forest.

Chaandogya Upanishad

"As when the bees collect honey from different trees, mix them up and reduce them to a unity and
the essences are not able to discriminate that, "I'm the essence of this tree", "I'm the essence
of that tree", even so all creatures though they reach Being in deep sleep, they do not know it".

"That which is the finest essence - that this whole world has as its Self. That is Atman. That
is Reality. That art thou (tat tvam asi), Shvetaketu".

"As the various rives which flow into the ocean and become the ocean itself, losing their
individuality they know not that, "I'm this river", "I'm that river". Likewise though all
creatures here in this world have come forth from Being they do not know that they have come
forth from Being".

"That which is the finest essence - that this whole world has as its Self. That is Atman. That
is Reality. That art thou (tat tvam asi), Shvetaketu".

"Bring a fruit from that nyagrodha tree there, Shvetaketu".
"Here it is, sir".
"Break it open".
"It is open, sir".
"What do you see there?".
"These fine seeds, sir".
"Break open a seed".
"It is open, sir".
"What do you see now?".
"Nothing, sir".
Then Uddhaalaka said to him, "Verily my dear son, that subtle essence which you do not perceive,
verily my dear, from that the great nyagrodha tree exists. Believe me, dear".
"That which is the finest essence - that this whole world has as its Self. That is Atman. That
is Reality. That art thou (tat tvam asi), Shvetaketu".

We conclude with a beautiful litany from the Brahmasukta of Atharvaveda (Paippalada Shakha)

"The Supreme Being are the fishermen,
The Suprme Being are the servants,
The Supreme Being indeed are these gamblers.
Man as well as woman originate from the Supreme Being
Women are God and so are men." VIII.9.10

"The Supreme Being is in the highlands, the Supreme Being is in the lowlands, (indeed)
the Supreme Being envelops from all directions.
Trees, mountains and in shrubs or creepers,
(Verily) The Supreme Being abides in these all.
The Earth and the Heavens
The Supreme Being abides in both" VIII.8.11

"These Heaven and Earth are Supreme Being,
The seven currents are The Supreme Being
All the Adityas are Supreme Being
(Verily) All the divine beings contemplate upon the Supreme Being." VIII.9.3

"The Brahamanas speak of (the glories of) the Supreme Being (during the day)
(But) The Supreme Being verily is present (also) in the night.
From The Supreme Being is born the {light} (of the Sun that brightens the day),
By the Supreme Being does fire shine with great splendour (at night). VIII.9.4

"The Supreme Being abides in food producing plants
And it is He who causes the rains (which give life to these plants) to descend.
(Indeed) The Supreme Being is inner animating Soul of all this
As long as the sun shines bright." VIII.9.5

"The Supreme Being is the priest who recites the chants during the ritual,
The Supreme Being is (also) the ritual
As well as the chants being recited with great precision.
From the Supreme Being arises the priest who pours the oblation into the fire
{Within} the Supreme Being {is present} the oblation." VIII.9.6

"The Supreme Being is the fire altar, brimming with clarified butter,
The Supreme Being are the bulls possessing the beneficient seed,
The Supreme Being are the cows, that yield the oblation going into the ritual fire,
The Supreme Being is he who, seated in the divine chariot, attains the well performed
magnificent ritual." VIII.9.7

"By the (will of the) Supreme Being the inert (thing) moves (and thus becomes dynamic)
By the (will of the) Supreme Being does the body unite (with life).
By the (will of) Supreme Being does the outward breath return to the man with great
trembling." VIII.9.8

Appendix 1

Ancient Upanishads of the Veda

I. Shakala Charana of Rigveda

Aitreya Upanishad (2nd Aranyaka of the Aitreya Aranyaka).

Asyavaamiya Sukta (Rigveda 1,164,1-64)

Purusha Sukta (Rigveda X, 90)

Nasadiya Sukta (Rigveda X, 129)

Hiranyagarbha Sukta (Rigveda X,121,1-10)

Vac Sukta (Rigveda)

Mudgala Upanishad of Mudgala Shakha

Galava Upanishad of Galava Shakha

II. Bashkala Charana of Rigveda

Bashkalamantra Upanishad

III. Mandukeya Charana of Rigveda

Bavrucha Upanishad

IV. Shankhayana Charana and Kaushitaki Charana of Rigveda

Kaushitaki Brahamana Upanishad in the Shankhayana Aranyaka

Samhita Upanishad in the Shankhayana Aranyaka

V. Taittiriya Charana of Krishna Yajurveda

Taittiriya Upanishad (Taittiriya Aranyaka prapathaka VII-IX)

Yajniki or Mahanarayana Upanishad (Taittiriya Aranyaka prapathaka X)

VI. Kathaka Charana of Krishna Yajurveda

Kathakamantra or Kathaka or Katha Upanishad

Kathashruti Upanishad

Kanthashruti Upanishad

Shivasamkalpa Brahamana

Katha Shiksha Upanishad

VI. Maitrayaniya Charana of Krishna Yajurveda

Maitrayaniya Upanishad or Maitrayainiya Aranyaka or Brihadaranyaka of Maitrayaniya
Shakha (the Charaka Aranyaka manuscript is almost identical to this text)

Samkaracarya (Advaita): This and all others subsequently are on the Kanva version of the text

Suresvaracharya: A voluminous commentary in approximately 12,000 verses. It is a Varttika

Bhasya of Madhvacharya

Anandagiri's commentary on the Varttika of Sri Suresvaracharya

Anandagiri's independent commentary on the Upanishad called 'Nyayamrita'

Tippana on # 3 by Jayatirtha

Aloka of Sri Vijnaana Bhiksu

Bhasya of Rangaramanuja Muni

Bhasya of Upanishad Brahmayogin

Hindi Bhasya by Pt. Satavalekara

Commentaries of Isavasya Upanishad

Bhartrprapanca (Bhedabheda Vedaanta: Was probably on Madhyandina recension of Yajurveda.
No longer extant. Extensive quotations are found in the Bhasyas of Sri Samkaracharya, Sri
Suresvacharya, Anandagiri and Anandapurna Muni

Samkaracarya (Advaita Vedaanta): This is on Kanva recension of Yajurveda

Uvata (Vaidik commentary): This is a part of the commentary on the entire Yajurveda
(Madhyandina recension)

Disciples of Bhartraprapancha: In his Varttika, Suresvara refers to interpretations
of # 1 by disciples of Bhartrprapanca

Hariswami: Portion of a commentary on the entire Satapatha Brahman. The relevant
portion is lost

Mukhyartha Prakasika of Dviveda Ganga, the son of Narayana

Vasudeva Brahma

Nilakantha: The author Nilakantha was the son of Ranganatha Saiva and Laksmi. His
teachers were Kasinatha and Sridhara. He referred to the previous commentaries by Sri
Samkaracharya and Sri Suresvaracharya on the Kanva version but omitted to comment on the
first two Braahmanas although they were commented upon by Sri Samkaracharya. Nilakantha
gives a reason for this omission and states that these two Braahmanas strictly belong to
Asvamedha Karmakaanda and are dealt with in the 10th prapathaka of Madhyandina Satapatha
Braahmana. Therefore, they should not be dealt with in a commentary on the Upanisad.

Mitaksara of Nityanandasrama, the disciple of Purusottamasrama

Chulika Upanishad

Bhasya of Rangaramanuja Muni

Dipika of Narayana Bhatta, son of Ratnakara Bhatta

Dipika of Narayanashramin

Dipika of Shankarananda

Commentary of Mukunda

Vivarana of Upanishadbrahmayogin

Svetasvatara Upanishad

Commentary ascribed to Sri Samkaracharya: considered spurious by many scholars

Aloka of Vijnaana Bhiksu

Commentary by Vijnaanatman, the disciple of Jnanottama

Narayana Upanishad

Bhatta Bhaskara

Sayanacharya

Bhasya of Kesava, a disciple of Sri Madhvacharya: It follows the Andhrapatha of the text.